| Literature DB >> 36059566 |
Enrico Prosperi1, Giada Guidi1, Christian Napoli2, Lucio Gnessi3, Luca Iocchi2.
Abstract
Obesity is a chronic multifactorial pathology determined by many factors, including incorrect eating habits and a low level of physical activity. There is an urgent need to promote a persistent change in lifestyle in obese subjects, but very few individuals maintain long-term results achieved after diet therapies. Therapeutic Education (TE) has taken over an important role as a multidisciplinary intervention aimed at improving lifestyle and at acquiring new skills for the management of the disease. However, only a small portion of patients can maintain participation in such programs and fully benefit from them. Assistive technologies, and in particular assistive social robots, are powerful tools to boost independence and improve participation in educational activities. The aim of the research work described in this article is to evaluate the effect of employing a social robot as a therapeutic educational robot helping the expert therapist in the education activity. This article describes the implementation, deployment, and evaluation of a social educational robot used as a TE assistant. Although we cannot provide statistically significant results due to the limited number of people involved in the experimental protocol, all experimental results show a positive trend, indicating that the robot can enhance the social interactions between the patients and the therapist and among the patients, thus bringing to better overall results of the TE sessions, measured with standard tests for obesity management.Entities:
Keywords: educational robot; human-robot interaction; obesity; social assistive robotics (SAR); therapeutic education
Year: 2022 PMID: 36059566 PMCID: PMC9428127 DOI: 10.3389/frobt.2022.895039
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Robot AI ISSN: 2296-9144
FIGURE 1TERESA social robot.
FIGURE 2TERESA software architecture illustrating the different software layers used in the application.
FIGURE 3TE session with TERESA social robot.
FIGURE 4Comparison between baseline and TERESA groups.
Comparison between baseline and TERESA groups. All indicators (in both control and experimental groups) denote improvements in the specific metric.
| Test | Baseline—Control group | TERESA—Experimental group |
|---|---|---|
| Participants | 259 | 16 |
| BMI | 40.40 → 39.06 (−3.3%) | 38.43 → 36.51 (−5.0%) |
| BES | 17.96 → 10.61 (−40.9%) | 21.13 → 9.94 (−53.0%) |
| SF36 | 55.30 → 66.03 (+19.4%) | 48.08 → 61.82 (+28.6%) |
| SF36-SF | 58.05 → 68.92 (+18.7%) | 56.46 → 68.23 (+20.8%) |
| SF36-SM | 57.03 → 68.93 (+20.9%) | 43.73 → 60.45 (+38.2%) |
| SCL90R | 1.05 → 0.77 (−26.8%) | 1.17 → 0.82 (−30.1%) |
| SCL90R-DEP | 1.32 → 0.92 (−30.3%) | 1.44 → 0.96 (−33.3%) |
| SCL90R-ANX | 0.96 → 0.72 (−24.6%) | 1.07 → 0.68 (−36.8%) |
| SCL90R-HOST | 0.83 → 0.58 (−29.9%) | 0.81 → 0.46 (−43.6%) |
Results of Godspeed questionnaire: average over a 5-points Likert scale.
| Overall | Patients | Therapists | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Anthropomorphism | 3.514 | 3.508 | 3.523 |
| Animacy | 3.645 | 3.645 | 3.644 |
| Likeability | 4.692 | 4.694 | 4.689 |
| Perceived Intelligence | 4.262 | 4.323 | 4.178 |
| Perceived Safety | 4.548 | 4.486 | 4.630 |
FIGURE 5Long Short-Term Memory diagram, where C is the memory cell and it contains the state. F,I,O are respectively the forget, input and output gates. H is the hidden vector (the output of the network) that depends both on the input X and state C. Original image from Jozefowicz et al. (2015).